Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 18:06, Bill Bogstad wrote: > > SCO seems to want to make > 'open source/GPL' go away as a concept. A more conservative explanation is that SCO is continuing its strategy of using lawsuits to maximize the value of its intellectual property, but they're running out of targets worth suing. If they left IBM and Linux alone, who else would they go after? The other Unix licensees, presumably, are all paying their bills on time. The BSD descendants were freed of Unix copyright claims years ago. Maybe some original Unix source code has crept into a closed-source Unix product, just because so many hackers have seen original Unix sources, but SCO would never know which closed-source Unix was guilty of the crime. > I don't see that it's in > IBM's best interest to agree to anything like this. Perhaps I'm > naive, but I think that IBM actually wants open source to be > successful. If it isn't, IBM will be stuck dancing to M$'s tune > forever. I'd think that getting out from underneath that would be > worth a lot of time/money to them. I see this as the flaw in Forbe's > analysis. If IBM settles, it undermines the business case for open source, since MS salesmen can whisper, "who knows what *other* companies have had their IP misappropriated by Linux...." -- "XML is an alphabet, not a language." --Clay Shirky // seth gordon // sethg at ropine.com // http://ropine.com/sethg/cv.html //
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |